Biblical inerrancy in the original manuscripts

Joseph Kelly from kolhaadam blog (now defunct) ran a 4 part series on why he is not an inerrantist. In part 1 he identifies the inerrantist's claim that only the original manuscripts are free from error. Kelly states that because there is no clear single autographical tradition the inerrantist's appeal to such is stillborn, there is no unique tradition. The example he gives is the book of Jeremiah. The Masoretic Jeremiah is significantly diverse from the Septuagintal Jeremiah, more than translational considerations allow. Kelly suggests than it is even possible Jeremiah and Baruch wrote several copies that were divergent and led to variant textual traditions.

I don't think this is a strong case against the inerrantist position for 2 reasons.

1. It is possible that recensions are also inerrant; and
2. The inerrantist appeal to the autographs is a minor feature of their position.

It seems likely that the Hebrew manuscripts were modified over the years after they were written. I take a relatively conservative approach to authorship, but even though I hold to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I don't think that the Deuteronomy postscript was written by Moses, and I think it likely that Moses compiled Genesis from sources that antedate him. Further, there were probably modifications to the Pentateuch over the centuries for explanatory reasons and the like. The Masoretics' aversion to modifying the text need not apply to pre-Christian Jewish scribes. This view even allows for Jeremiah to modify his writings resulting in a primitive and a modified textual tradition. Inerrantists could claim both to be without error, and the modified text to be the more complete revelation. Not that I necessarily hold this view of Jeremiah. But the argument about choosing manuscripts is more about textual criticism than it is about inerrancy.

The larger issue here is that the appeal to autographs is not the focus of inerrancy. Kelly seems to recognise this as he states,

This appeal to the autographs helps to escape the obvious error that occurred during transmission as well as the complexity behind identifying which textual tradition is the inerrant one.

The focus of inerrancy is that the Bible is without error of fact, not just doctrine. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (which I am comfortable with) affirms this. There are several articles to explain what is meant by this affirmation but some of these qualifiers mean that inerrantists are not compelled to defend pseudo-errors. One of the qualifiers is that the claim of inerrancy only applies to original wording of the manuscripts. Article 10 states,

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

While Kelly is addressing text-types (or rather, the possibility of non-unique sources, which is within the larger concept of text-type veracity), the bigger issue for inerrancy is usually one of translation. In practice, appeal is made to the Bible in one's own language. I speak neither Hebrew nor Greek so my appeals must be to the English Bible. And I am confident that Bibles in other languages are accurate enough for inerrancy apologists of foreign speech. It is not that inerrantists continually appeal to the non-extant texts, rather it is to dismiss the claims of error that only exist as result of errant transcription and, more often, errant translation. It seems to me that the usual appeal is to the original language or the original words (as opposed to the original manuscript) to resolve a difficulty of translation. I am not certain that a large number of difficulties, that is issues of errancy, arise from the different text-types.

Transcribing Scripture

A brief insight into how difficult copying the Bible was before the advent of printing;

The scribes dedicated themselves to the task of copying six hours a day for months at a time in a hunched-over posture. Often lighting was poor and conditions were harsh. One scribe described a time when his room was so cold his ink froze and his hand became so stiff he could no longer hold the writing quill.

The article mentions the common Greek letters that were confused with each other: Σ, Ε, Ο, Θ; and Γ, Π, T; thus some variant readings.

Possibly the earliest manuscript from the New Testament

An early fragment of New Testament has been found. This was hinted at a month ago and further details have become available.

The Mark fragment is "a very small fragment, not too many verses, but it's definitely from Mark," Wallace said. "... To have a fragment from one of the Gospels that's written during the lifetime of some of the eyewitnesses to the resurrection is just astounding."

To date, the earliest-known fragment of the New Testament is from John's Gospel and dates from around 125 A.D.

The Mark fragment, Wallace said, will affirm what is already written in that portion of Mark's Gospel.

The paleographer who dated it, Wallace said, is "one of the world's leading paleographers." Wallace previously said the paleographer is certain it's from the first century. Still, Wallace told Hewitt, several more paleographers will look at the Mark fragment before the book is published.

The Mark fragment will be published in a book along with six other manuscripts, Wallace said. One of those will be a second-century sermon on Hebrews 11. The significance: It shows Hebrews -- whose author is unknown -- was accepted early by the church as Scripture.

Previously the earliest fragment was Paparus 52, verses from John, dated 125 AD. This new fragment was

dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934.

Not only this, but the first-century fragment is from Mark’s Gospel. Before the discovery of this fragment, the oldest manuscript that had Mark in it was P45, from the early third century (c. 200–250 CE). This new fragment would predate that by 100 to 150 years.

P-52

This fragment of Mark is one of 6 manuscripts from the Bible found in this Egyptian discovery. Also found were fragments of Luke and 4 Pauline epistles.

Ezekiel plates

Apparently stone plates containing the complete text of the book of Ezekiel were found about 100 years ago. There are 66 plates about 30 cm square containing the entire book of Ezekiel in paleo-Hebrew script. Though known to the archaeological world they are less prominent than other artifacts. I had not heard of them previously.

They are in the news as they are undergoing dating to establish when they were made. The current range is from 300 to 2000 years old.

The tiles’ authenticity is also open to question because the time and location of the find, as well as its chain of custody, are not as well documented as scholars now demand for wider acceptance. A number of forgeries have infiltrated the field of biblical archeology in recent decades, and thus the standards of proof are being forced upward.

In this case, the tiles were supposedly found over 100 years ago when visitors to the traditional tomb of Ezekiel in the small Iraqi town of Kfar al-Kafil, located about 50 miles south of Baghdad, noticed a stone tile had fallen off the inside of the burial chamber. Oddly, its back side contained an ancient lettering which had been deliberately hidden, facing the wall. Other tiles were removed and similar inscriptions were found on their back sides as well.

The entire set of Ezekiel plates were then taken to Lebanon, where decades later a Christian Arab widow, on the advice of her priest, wanted to place them in Jewish hands before she moved to France. She sold them for a mere two pounds sterling to businessman David Hacohen in 1947.

He smuggled the plates into Israel in 1953, and they were eventually acquired by Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Israel’s second president and a noted historian, who considered them a valuable national treasure.

After Ben-Zvi’s death, the Ezekiel plates became the property of the Institute in Jerusalem set up in his honor, which had them in storage until Zwebner convinced his wife’s parents, Max and Lombi Landau, to sponsor their public display.

I think this is most interesting, both from the perspective of more ancient Old Testament texts and for reviewing the (minor) divergence in the plate text from the Masoretic text. Though the first task is to establish the age. They may be of less linguistic value if they are only a few hundred years old.

Genesis and the toledoth theory

The Hebrew phrase ’elle toledot occurs 10 times in the book of Genesis. It is traditionally translated, "These are the generations of". Other translations include

• This is the account of (NIV, NET)
• These are the records of the generations of (NASB)
• This is the history of (NLT)
• These are the descendants of (NRSV)
• This is the genealogy of (NKJV)
• These are the historical developments arising out of (Wolters)

A question has arisen as to whether this phrase is introductory or concluding; is it a title or a colophon. Other ancient Near-Eastern texts (or tablets) have concluding data. Several people have concluded that Genesis was constructed from similar tablets and these toledoth phrases were included from the tablets' colophons. Percy Wiseman advocated this theory. A argument for toledoth being a colophon not an introduction can be found here.

I have no qualms that Moses wrote Genesis based on previous written records, be that clay, skin, or scrolls. I think, however, the internal evidence of Genesis points to these being introductory phrases. Here is the list of the phrases as they appear in Genesis.

1. These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. (Genesis 2:4)
2. This is the book of the generations of Adam. (Genesis 5:1)
3. These are the generations of Noah. (Genesis 6:9)
4. These are the generations of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (Genesis 10:1)
5. These are the generations of Shem. (Genesis 11:10)
6. These are the generations of Terah. (Genesis 11:27)
7. These are the generations of Ishmael. (Genesis 25:12)
8. These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. (Genesis 25:19)
9. These are the generations of Esau (that is, Edom). (Genesis 36:1)
10. These are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. (Genesis 36:9)
11. These are the generations of Jacob. (Genesis 37:2)

There are several arguments against these being colophons.

There is no phrase at the end of Genesis for one.

Genesis follows a family line from Adam to Israel. Because of this, a phrase like, "These are the generations of Noah" could theoretically be read as the conclusion of the history up to Noah, or as the introduction to Noah and his family. Given the Semitic reasoning that a man's honour is somewhat thru his posterity, I think an introductory interpretation is preferable, though I concede the posterity argument is not definitive.

But the main reason is that all of the phrases can be read as introductions based on the subsequent material, but not all of them can be read as endings. Some of the passages can only be read as introductory because they discuss genealogies that are not in the line to Israel. If these specific uses are introductory it seems reasonable that all uses in Genesis are introductory.

Consider Ishmael. The phrase, "These are the generations of Ishmael" in Genesis 25:12 precedes a discussion of Ishmael's descendants. Now one could possibly argue that this phrase comes at the end of Abraham's life which leads into Ishmael's story (though unlikely given the focus on Isaac earlier in Genesis). But if we accept verse 12 as a colophon then we have the problem that Genesis 25:19 is a colophon, yet the phrase, "These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son" is hardly a fitting conclusion to a discussion of Ishmael's descendants.

Note also that although item 10 may be a variant on 9, that is a repeat phrase rather than a different document; the repetition of Esau's descendants may well represent different documents, and would only fit with an introductory interpretation of toledoth.

Against this it is argued that the final use in Genesis talks about Joseph not Jacob. I find this unconvincing for 2 reasons. I have already mentioned that fame is somewhat related to posterity, so a discussion solely focused on Joseph would be consistent with this. Especially given that toledot (generation) is derived from yalad (beget)^*. But note also the narrative from Genesis 37 to 50 is about Jacob and his family. It is just that the beginning of the narrative starts with Joseph in the field. This is of no significance.

At least 2 conclusions follow from this:

1. The proposal that Genesis was composed by Moses from earlier written material seems more likely than than oral transmission or revelation. Note also the use of the word book in the second occurrence in verse 5:1.
2. Genesis 2:4 is introducing the narrative in Genesis 2, not concluding the creation account in Genesis 1.

If we suppose the repeated use of this formula is likely to be used consistently before or after a unit of narrative, then the internal evidence in Genesis is that toledoth is used cataphorically.

---

^*This is not the genetic fallacy as the words are related in meaning in the same era.

Fraudulent manuscript

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts is a very useful ministry which produces high quality facsimiles of New Testament manuscripts and catalogues them. They have discovered some manuscripts that are not known from other catalogues.

Recently they were invited to photograph an undocumented manuscript. This would be exciting except it turned out to be fraudulent.

And so the riddle of an unknown Greek manuscript is solved. What could have been a thrilling new discovery turns out to be a modern forgery. The work was not all in vain, of course. In the process our team learned a good deal about how to spot a forgery.

Read about the events leading to this conclusion here.

Bethke on manuscript history

Bruce Bethke writes an interesting post titled Relevance. Expanding how a simple question can have so many underlying assumptions.

Some days you can ask what seems like a simple question, and find that instead of plucking off a loose thread, you've started unraveling the entire sweater. For example, this morning I asked my wife one simple question, and before I knew it, we were deeply into a wide-ranging discussion of Old Testament history, subtext, context, and translation issues.

...To begin comprehending her answer, then, we should first examine the embedded subtext of the question I didn't even know I'd asked: does a book written 2,000 years ago really have any relevance to our lives today?

...It was the Septuagint that was widely read and circulated in the early Christian Era and used as the basis for the Latin translation (the Vulgate) written by St. Jerome in the 4th century CE,... The King James version in turn became the basis for almost all subsequent English-language Protestant Bibles except the Lutheran version, which is based on Luther's German translation, and a careful reader will note many subtle differences between the English-language Catholic, Lutheran, and other Protestant versions of the Bible. (For example, even today the Catholic version of the Ten Commandments omits the prohibition against worshiping graven images, while the Episcopalian version has been shortened to the Nine Suggestions.)

It is worth reading for his conclusion, a modern application of an ancient biblical passage.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are to be placed online

Exciting stuff.


The Dead Sea Scrolls, at least the initial manuscripts, were found in 1947. Different groups were given the task of transcribing and translating the discoveries; probably a good thing given how long at least 1 group took. Reasonable quality photographs could have been made at the time the time of the discovery (and in fact were) with facsimiles distributed to interested parties around the world, but this didn't happen.

If all the photos manage to be uploaded then hopefully interested groups will be able to create text files. Much of this may have already been done. These can subsequently be integrated into a database of various Bible manuscripts. This kind of open access resource could aid in creating a more accurate Old Testament text.

Newer technologies allow photographing in other wavelengths. The image on the right above being an infrared image. This should help in clarifying hard to read passages.

In similar news the Codex Sinaiticus is gradually being uploaded. Though photos of previous photos are already available online.

The postdiluvian patriarchs

Only the age at the birth of the son and the remaining years are mentioned for the postdiluvian patriarchs. The age at which they died can easily be calculated. Again the figures vary depending on the texttype.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Noah	502	448	950	502	448	950	502	448	950
Shem	100	500	600	100	500	600	100	500	600
Arphaxad	35	403	438	135	430	565	135	303	438
Shelah	30	403	433	130	330	460	130	303	433
Eber	34	430	464	134	370	504	134	270	404
Peleg	30	209	239	130	209	339	130	109	239
Reu	32	207	239	132	207	339	132	107	239
Serug	30	200	230	130	200	330	130	100	230
Nahor	29	119	148	79	129	208	79	69	148
Terah	70	135	205	70	135	205	70	75	145

The figures for Terah are to his first son. Genesis 12 and Acts 7 imply that Abram was 75 at Terah's death and therefore Terah was 130 when Abram was born, so the year in which Abram was born is 75 years prior to Terah's death.

So we can calculate the year of the flood, the year in which Abram was born and the time elapsed.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Period	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram	Flood	Gap	Abram
	1656	352	2008	2242	1132	3374	1307	942	2249

Again I prefer the Masoretic. There seems to be a rationale for lengthening the times so as to make one's culture ancient, but to shorten the timeframe would seem unlikely. As there is no summary age as there is in Genesis 5, the fact of the systematic change in Genesis 5 and the frequent difference of 100 years suggests this was conscious, not accidental.

If the Masoretic is original, then the Samaritan has added years till the year of the first child but subtracted them for the remaining years leaving the total calculated age the same even though this is not given in Scripture. The exceptions being Eber and Nahor. The interesting thing about Eber is that the age after the son was born is 100 years less than the Septuagint. Was there are further Hebrew text which gave 370 years to Eber after his son was born?

Explaining the derivation of the Septuagint is difficult. Arphaxad, Salah and Eber don't appear to derive from the Masoretic at all. A smoothing effect (so that the ages drop off steadily from 900 years) is not clearly apparent and is an inadequate explanation.

If the Masoretic is correct we have the situation where Abram potentially could have known his ancestors. Abram was born in 2008 AM. Note the year of death.

Name	Birth	Death
Noah	1056	2006
Shem	1558	2158
Arphaxad	1658	2096
Shelah	1693	2126
Eber	1723	2187
Peleg	1757	1996
Reu	1787	2026
Serug	1819	2049
Nahor	1849	1997
Terah	1878	2083
Abram	2008	2183

Of Abram's 10 ancestors following the Flood, 7 of them were alive at his birth. Noah died 2 years before Abram was born. And Peleg and Nahor also died prior to his birth. The others were all alive. Shem, who had seen the Flood, only died 25 years before Abram, Abram would have been 150 years old and Isaac 50. Eber, from whom the Hebrews derive their name, outlived Abram!

The antediluvian patriarchs

The ages the patriarchs had their sons and their age at death differs according to the various text types. Most English Bibles use the Masoretic figures.

Texttype	Masoretic			Septuagint			Samaritan
Name	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died	Son	Years	Died
Adam	130	800	930	230	700	930	130	800	930
Seth	105	807	912	205	707	912	105	807	912
Enosh	90	815	905	190	715	905	90	815	905
Kenan	70	840	910	170	740	910	70	840	910
Mahalaleel	65	830	895	165	730	895	65	830	895
Jared	162	800	962	162	800	962	62	785	847
Enoch	65	300	365	165	200	365	65	300	365
Methuselah	187	782	969	167	802	969	67	653	720
Lamech	182	595	777	188	565	753	53	600	653
Noah	500	450	950	500	450	950	500	450	950

Noah was 500 when he became the father of Japheth. Genesis 7 tells us that Noah was 600 when the Flood came. This would make the date of the Flood according to the various texttypes:

• 1656 AM, Masoretic
• 2242 AM, Septuagint
• 1307 AM, Samaritan

So which is correct?

The corrupt texts have been deliberately changed. This is obvious because in Genesis 5 the age of fathering the son, the remaining years and the total age is given. As the first 2 figures sum to the 3rd an error in one of the figures would lead to an incorrect sum yet in all texttypes all figures add up. Josephus gives different figures again though they are similar to the Septuagint. I have not seen figures for the Dead Sea Scrolls, I do not know whether there are any manuscripts of the early chapters of Genesis found. It would be interesting to know as some Dead Sea Scrolls preserve in Hebrew a more Septuagint texttype.

One thing that points away from the Septuagint is that by its chronology Methuselah outlives the Flood which is not possible. If the meaning of Methselah is "when he dies it shall be sent," then this points to the accuracy of the Masoretic and the Samaritan which both have Methuselah's death in the year of the Deluge.

A further possible argument against the Septuagint is that is was translated perhaps 250 BC. Many cultures claimed antiquity for themselves. There may have been a desire to lengthen Hebrew history, either to make claims for priority, or to allow time to accommodate the claims of other cultures; it would not do to have Yahweh creating the earth many years after Egypt was founded. Egyptian history is not as old as is sometimes claimed, it postdates the Flood which leaves even less time for it to develop, but this is a possible argument for the translators changing the figures in Genesis 5 and 11. Interestingly the age at fatherhood for the Septuagint is exactly 100 years greater than the Masoretic for most men. Setterfield suggests a mark for 100 has been omitted in the switch from paleo-Hebrew glyphs to the square Hebrew (Setterfield favours the Septuagint as being original as did many church fathers). I am not convinced this is an adequate explanation as there is a loss of 100 years for the years they lived after fathering the relevant descendant: a deliberate change in whichever texttype is errant.

This does raise an interesting point though, how old was Jared when Enoch was born? If the Masoretic is original and the Septugint routinely added 100 years (except for Noah for other reasons) why not make Jared 262? Is the Samaritan correct here? Was 262 seen as just too old? Noah was 500. Does the Samaritan decrease the age in line with the surrounding patriarchs? But why would a culture want to minimise its ancestry? And if we decide to follow the Samaritan then both Methuselah and Lamech die in the year of the Flood. Possible but it does seem a little convenient.

The fact that the first 2 figures add up to the third in all versions (corrupt and original) is evidence that the men changing the ages in translation understood the chronology to be airtight, there are no gaps.

Though I think the Septuagint is underrated in current English translations, I tend towards the Masoretic figures in Genesis 5. I have no desire to make the world any older or shorter than it is. Claims of cultural antiquity no longer bother me, all cultures must post date the Flood and even using the Septuagint leaves one at odds with secular dating for many post-Flood artefacts. And good arguments can be made for shortening many chronologies.

There is a place for looking for common themes amongst the varying figures. The problem is that the corrupt figures are not accidental, they are deliberate, and deducing the original is that much harder. It is not the case that a misread letter explains variant readings. The most similarities can do is fix ages for specific men. The only agreement for the antediluvian patriarchs across all 3 texttypes is that of Noah.

It would be wonderful to find a manuscript in paleo-Hebrew. It may help point us toward the original.

Should we favour the Septuagint or the Masoretic text?

I think undue emphasis has been placed on the Masoretic text in translating English Bibles. This is somewhat understandable in that we have many Masoretic manuscripts and they are very similar. Further, the Septugint, while not only varying from the Masoretic type, varies from manuscript to manuscript. I think, however, there are several issues that have been inadequately dealt with.

The similarity of the Septuagint to some Hebrew Dead Sea scrolls suggests that there was a Hebrew text type that the Septuagint was translated from, and that was not the Masoretic text type. One can argue that this Hebrew vorlage may be inferior to the Masoretic but that is another issue; the point is we have a competing text that must be interacted with.

Different books were likely translated by different scholars. So one cannot treat the Septuagint as a whole. I understand that much more attention was paid in translating the Pentateuch than the other books. Therefore it may be potentially legitimate to claim the the Septuagint's Pentateuch vorlage is closer to the original than the Masoretic, while arguing for the Masoretic with other books.

New Testament quotes of the Old Testament do not always conform to the Masoretic. Some quote the Masoretic, some the Septuagint. Horn states,

I am quite sure that Matthew quoted from a Hebrew text that agreed with the Vorlage that the Greek translators used.

Other options for the New Testament authors could include: a different source text, the source texts are similar enough at the passage to preclude identification, or the quote is a paraphrase. The authors of the New Testament would have been aware of Hebrew variants and the Greek translation had been used in some synagogues.

An aside, I have no concerns with the New Testament authors being free in their Old Testament quotes. If what they write has the same meaning as the original—in terms of the point they are drawing from it—then the quote is accurate. If, however, the point is only apparent in the variant and the variant is not original this becomes more difficult to justify. This is because the reason for quoting the Old Testament is its authoritative nature. It is similar to Christians defending the trinity from 1 John 5. The trinity can be defended from Scripture but not based on this verse if it is not original. (One may be able to show the early churches' views based on the insertion of this verse though).

Josephus (and others) don't use the Masoretic. Given that Josephus' ages of the ante- and postdiluvian patriarchs parallel the Septuagint (and these are most likely to have been changed in translation) he is likely quoting the Septuagint not a Hebrew variant, so this does not add further evidence. I vaguely recall that Josephus at times uses a text that is not comparable to Septuagint which may suggest a further text, or at least a variant Septuagint type.

A further issue of much importance is that while we can take confidence in the accuracy of the transmission of the Masoretic text, this does not automatically carry over to the origin of the Masoretic text. The proverbial weakest link in a chain. If the Masoretic endeavour began after the resurrection there could be ulterior motives of the scribes given the antagonism of many Jews to the new Christian sect. This could be as sinister as removing or changing a text, one that Christians interpreted favourably in their defence of Jesus' Messiahhood; or it could be by merely favouring a text type that provided less apologetic power to the Christians. This may not seem in line with what we know of the Masoretes. However selecting a text is not the same as fastidiously transmitting it over the centuries.

Those involved in recovering the original text of the Old Testament undoubtedly know all this and more. There may be other compelling reasons to favour the Masoretic text. But I think the pendulum needs to swing back a little and we need to give more credence to the Septuagint, at least parts of it, as did some of the church fathers. There are likely groups involved in trying to recreate the original Septuagint. If it was translated over time there may have been more than one early translation of the same passage.

Resolving the Hebrew the Septuagint translators used is possible (to a degree) and this is compared with the Masoretic text. I think we need to be prepared to weight some books of the Septuagint heavier than currently.

As it is currently, in some passages the Septuagint is thought to represent the original over the Masoretic. But we need to shift this bias. If we acknowledge the Septuagint is usable when the the Masoretic is clearly wrong, then it is obvious that the Septuagint is a preferable text some of the time. This means that it may be a preferable text in other places where the Masoretic is not clearly wrong but appears inferior. Then we go from the assumption that the Masoretic is reliable unless proven otherwise to the Masoretic is one among several competing witnesses.

Concerning the Old Testament sources

I have not read a lot on this topic but have some preliminary thoughts. I think the search for the original text is warranted and helpful. If the text is inerrant, there can be subtle things to learn from analysing the minutia of Scripture—so long one doesn't lose sight of the major themes. I doubt any significant doctrine of Christianity is affected by the current text we have. And there is always the issue over whether we appreciate what the text meant at the time even if we know exactly what it said.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and a small amount in Aramaic. Major sources include the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a Samaritan Pentateuch which is a further source.

The Masoretic text in square Hebrew charcters post-dates the destruction of the temple. The text was hand copied down through the centuries. Many have written on the care that the Masoretes took with the text such that we can be very confident that the text we now have is similar to the text they started with. The oldest extant Masoretic texts come from the 9th century. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls in 1947 showed similarities in some manuscripts that suggest the Masoretic type text dates from at least the same time and demonstrated the accuracy of the Masoretes. Modern English Bibles place much weight on the Masoretic text.

The Septuagint is the Greek translation that post dates the completion of the Old Testament and predates Christ. It is thought to have been written approximately 250BC. It is possible that the Pentateuch was translated first with other books in the following years. Though some Septuagint fragments date to the 2nd century BC, more complete copies post-date the birth of Jesus by > 300 years.

The Dead Sea scrolls date over several centuries up until about the time of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple. While some manuscripts bear testimony to the Masoretic text, some of the Dead Sea scrolls seem to follow at text type similar to the Septuagint.

For reasons I will post on later, I think more credence should be given to parts of the Septuagint. The variations are not solely due to translation but existed in the source text. That this vorlage existed is confirmed by the Dead Sea scrolls. The question is whether it is more accurate at times.